• Member Statistics

    16,542
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    feyt
    Newest Member
    feyt
    Joined
Chicago Storm

Jan 24-26th Potential Something Part 2

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hoosier said:

Bit of a facepalm run here.  There's decent snow with the hangback feature on Tuesday but that is mostly just north of here.

The euro seems to want to tilt the axis of heaviest snow closer to SW to NE. I wouldn’t worry too much until it gets confirmation from other guidance, but it is concerning for both of us.

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutal Euro run for Indiana and Michigan folks looking for a warning criteria snow. Horrible. Certainly not throwing in the towel but this trend toward shearing out before the best snows get this far east is getting hard to ignore.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mimillman said:

I’m not harassing you, I’m disagreeing with you. If you’re going to continue to post unsubstantiated claims, expect the disagreement to continue.

 

Nothing I said was unsubstantiated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think northern LOT is in a 6” floor, high ceiling scenario. If the low remains intact a bit longer, there will be some sig totals. W LOT could jackpot by catching both the initial heavier band and any redevelopment for a secondary low.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And light snow all day Wednesday in Chicagoland.  As DIT in New England would say-days and days of snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AWMT30 said:

What an absolute shaft for SE MI Damn it.. 

Canadian ensembles further north and stronger...then the euro comes out. the circus of possible scenarios continues

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, McHenrySnow said:

I’m really over your constant harassment. 

8 minutes ago, mimillman said:

I’m not harassing you, I’m disagreeing with you. If you’re going to continue to post unsubstantiated garbage, expect the disagreement to continue.

2 minutes ago, McHenrySnow said:

Nothing I said was unsubstantiated. 

Can you both take your crap to DMs?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SchaumburgStormer said:

I think northern LOT is in a 6” floor, high ceiling scenario. If the low remains intact a bit longer, there will be some sig totals. W LOT could jackpot by catching both the initial heavier band and any redevelopment for a secondary low.

Rockford almost always manages to do well no matter. Several models show a lower area of totals over Boone and McHenry due to the low shearing out and then the lake compensating for Lake and Cook. I’d be very happy with 6”, and, as I said, I’m becoming cautiously optimistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

Nothing I said was unsubstantiated. 

I’m sorry, there is not a SINGLE piece of operational guidance that supports northern LOT underperforming to the degree you’re suggesting. You’ve been a harbinger of doom from the very start of this event, have refused to acknowledge trends opposed to your view, and quite frankly it’s getting tiring. I respect a Met tag and I’m sure you’re speaking from experience, but for the love of god back it up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McHenrySnow said:

Nothing I said was unsubstantiated. 

I'd say it's bordering on that.  Current guidance is in good agreement on 6"+ in northern LOT, so unless there's a southern shift, you're good.  I know one thing, I'd rather be north of where I am for this one.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mimillman said:

I’m sorry, there is not a SINGLE piece of operational guidance that supports northern LOT underperforming to the degree you’re suggesting. You’ve been a harbinger of doom from the very start of this event, have refused to acknowledge trends opposed to your view, and quite frankly it’s getting tiring. I respect a Met tag and I’m sure you’re speaking from experience, but for the love of god back it up.

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. You must also have poor reading comprehension as I have repeated acknowledged trends are looking better. I’m not responding to you from here on out, you’re a troll. 

  • Weenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McHenrySnow said:

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. I’m not responding to from here on out. 

Oh my god why are you making claims based on the NAM and RGEM when you have literally the rest of guidance suggesting otherwise. Sure they could be right, but neither of them are especially good and are both operating outside of 60hrs. A met should really know better than to go all in on 2 garbage models that are towards the end of their operational range to boot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. I’m not responding to you from here on out. 

image.thumb.png.f8120b0169a0835d4bc259c40f8ef9a3.png

image.thumb.png.b3b30ec2db643803f3d6f1ee54c8729a.png

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McHenrySnow said:

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. I’m not responding to from here on out. 

I’m not sure why you, as a meteorologist, are cherry picking models which are outliers of the growing consensus to minimize the storm. Yes there are failure modes, but the preponderance of the evidence is showing a substantial event for N IL.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SchaumburgStormer said:

I’m not sure why you, as a meteorologist, are cherry picking models which are outliers of the growing consensus to minimize the storm. Yes there are failure modes, but the preponderance of the evidence is showing a substantial event for N IL.

Am I writing in a foreign language? Or do you guys not bother to read.  Where did I say I’m choosing one model over the other. I’ve repeatedly said my expectations have increased and I’m not worried about getting completely shafted like I once was. 

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, McHenrySnow said:

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. You must also have poor reading comprehension as I have repeated acknowledged trends are looking better. I’m not responding to you from here on out, you’re a troll. 

2 models with more than 6" in Northern LOT. You are off here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does it cost to buy a met tag to replace my weenie tag?  Event wise 6-10" still looks reasonable. Hopefully, in time we can walk back some of the eastward weakening trends. Glad today's 12Z runs were fairly drama free.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trend on the NAM is more important than the verbatim output right now, and it is gradually heading toward what other guidance has been showing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a concern with shear and unlike lake and cook, inland counties won’t benefit much if at all from the lake. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, McHenrySnow said:

You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. You must also have poor reading comprehension as I have repeated acknowledged trends are looking better. I’m not responding to you from here on out, you’re a troll. 

 

Just now, McHenrySnow said:

Am I writing in a foreign language? Or do you guys not bother to read.  Where did I say I’m choosing one model over the other. I’ve repeatedly said my expectations have increased and I’m not worried about getting completely shafted like I once was. 

Do you read what you write? You clearly picked 2 models here...

Proving that have the degree does not necessarily make a good forecaster 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McHenrySnow said:

There is a concern with shear and unlike lake and cook, inland counties won’t benefit much if at all from the lake. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this statement. 

We agree on something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

I'd say it's bordering on that.  Current guidance is in good agreement on 6"+ in northern LOT, so unless there's a southern shift, you're good.  I know one thing, I'd rather be north of where I am for this one.

Yep, agree overall.  With that said, I think it's natural to be on edge and worry before the storm...thinking more about what could go wrong vs. what is likely to occur.

For northern LOT specifically...a couple days ago it looked like the initial/separate WAA snow tonight would be 2-3", now it may only be a dusting.  So, that doesn't help.  And, although I know op runs should be taken with a grain of salt at range, there were a couple of op Euro runs showing close to 2 feet in northern LOT...which now is nowhere to be found.  It's all relative. :) 

Plus, if the storm really does weaken/shear out due to the effects of the block, it's likely to take a bit more southern route...which could favor the heart of the city instead of the northern areas.  And, even if lake enhancement does occur, it may tend to favor the lakeside counties instead of McHenry and further west.

Again - all else being equal, I think there are still concerns in northern LOT, especially away from the lake...just like there are (different) concerns elsewhere in LOT and northern IN and into MI.  That's why we need a true spread-the-wealth storm...so that everyone shares in the fun.  I initially thought this storm might be it...but it appears to be transitioning to a narrow swath of heavier snowfall for a lucky few.  And by heaviest, I mean 10"+.   Not meant to complain...just human nature to be on edge a bit, given the snow drought that many of us have experienced over the last 2-3 years. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SchaumburgStormer said:

 

Do you read what you write? You clearly picked 2 models here...

Proving that have the degree does not necessarily make a good forecaster 

He said no models substantiated what I had said and that was not true. 
 

ive acknowledged a good trend, I’m just being cautious. I’m sorry I can’t lend myself to weenie forecasting that suits you. 

  • Weenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beavis1729 said:

Yep, agree overall.  With that said, I think it's natural to be on edge and worry before the storm...thinking more about what could go wrong vs. what is likely to occur.

For northern LOT specifically...a couple days ago it looked like the initial/separate WAA snow tonight would be 2-3", now it may only be a dusting.  So, that doesn't help.  And, although I know op runs shoudl be taken with a grain of salt at range, there were a couple of op Euro runs showing close to 2 feet in northern LOT...which now is nowhere to be found.  It's all relative. :) 

Plus, if the storm really does weaken/shear out due to the effects of the block, it's likely to take a bit more southern route...which could favor the heart of the city instead of the northern areas.  And, even if lake enhancement does occur, it may tend to favor the lakeside counties instead of McHenry and further west.

Again - all else being equal, I think there are still concerns in northern LOT, especially away from the lake...just like there are (different) concerns elsewhere in LOT and northern IN and into MI.  That's why we need a true spread-the-wealth storm...so that everyone shares in the fun.  I initially thought this storm might be it...but it appears to be transitioning to a narrow swath of heavier snowfall for a lucky few.  And by heaviest, I mean 10"+.   Not meant to complain...just human nature to be on edge a bit, given the snow drought that many of us have experienced over the last 2-3 years. 

 Be prepared to be piled on, but you’re used to it, I know.

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

Am I writing in a foreign language? Or do you guys not bother to read.  Where did I say I’m choosing one model over the other. I’ve repeatedly said my expectations have increased and I’m not worried about getting completely shafted like I once was. 

At the end of the day, if you have a met tag there are high expectations for the content you post. Most of us expect to see folks with met tags posting analysis and helping the rest of us understand better. I've seen neither from you. Mostly what I see is complaining. So if you're going to carry that met tag, and continue to complain and otherwise not provide any meaningful analysis, you should expect to get trolled. It really is as simple as that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're still a bit far out to be concerned about the finer scale details of a particular operational run. There's a pretty good consensus developing on the big picture, which is I-80 and north favored and northern tier looking much better than it had been the previous few days.

 

New ECMWF in a vacuum is less favorable with southward extent, though I'm sure when the ensembles roll we'll see wiggle room within the general consensus of the EPS, that's been rock solid consistent. Takeaway from the prolonged mid-level forcing on Tuesday is it would be a nice way to tack on higher ratio fluff with 850s down around -10C.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nelson said:

At the end of the day, if you have a met tag there are high expectations for the content you post. Most of us expect to see folks with met tags posting analysis and helping the rest of us understand better. I've seen neither from you. Mostly what I see is complaining. So if you're going to carry that met tag, and continue to complain and otherwise not provide any meaningful analysis, you should expect to get trolled. It really is as simple as that.

Their harassment started long before my tag, but thanks for the input.

  • Weenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beavis1729 said:

Yep, agree overall.  With that said, I think it's natural to be on edge and worry before the storm...thinking more about what could go wrong vs. what is likely to occur.

For northern LOT specifically...a couple days ago it looked like the initial/separate WAA snow tonight would be 2-3", now it may only be a dusting.  So, that doesn't help.  And, although I know op runs shoudl be taken with a grain of salt at range, there were a couple of op Euro runs showing close to 2 feet in northern LOT...which now is nowhere to be found.  It's all relative. :) 

Plus, if the storm really does weaken/shear out due to the effects of the block, it's likely to take a bit more southern route...which could favor the heart of the city instead of the northern areas.  And, even if lake enhancement does occur, it may tend to favor the lakeside counties instead of McHenry and further west.

Again - all else being equal, I think there are still concerns in northern LOT, especially away from the lake...just like there are (different) concerns elsewhere in LOT and northern IN and into MI.  That's why we need a true spread-the-wealth storm...so that everyone shares in the fun.  I initially thought this storm might be it...but it appears to be transitioning to a narrow swath of heavier snowfall for a lucky few.  And by heaviest, I mean 10"+.   Not meant to complain...just human nature to be on edge a bit, given the snow drought that many of us have experienced over the last 2-3 years. 

It’s fine to worry. Hell, I am worried about some sort of monkey wrench. Where I have an issue is with a “met” ignoring guidance to fit some sort of weird crusade for underperformance. If it indeed does underperform, then we can do a post analysis, but ignoring a consensus of modeling is simply bad forecasting and wishcasting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.